Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

General Annoyance wrote:
...but I think too many people put winning above having fun, and that's not how the hobby should be done.

We see this sort of comment a lot on the forums, and it continues to puzzle me. What it is, is a complete misunderstanding of what competitive players are playing for.

There may well be a few competitive players who play purely to win... although given the comparative value of the prizes offered in competitive events, these sorts of people are more likely to be playing a game like Magic, where tens of thousands of dollars are in the offing for winning, rather than a battleforce or a store gift voucher...

But the vast majority of competitive players are playing for fun. They just get their fun from playing to win.

Nobody ever told me that I was missing the point of playing Chess, or Monopoly by playing to win. Why should 40K be any different? It's a boardgame in which two players battle each other with the intention of one of them emerging victorious. Winning is the point of the game...

If you prefer a more casual approach, and your goal is more to push your miniatures around the board and see what happens, that's great. And if you and your opponent are both having fun, then you're doing it right.

But the competitive players who are playing with optimised lists and playing as if its serious bizness? They're also having fun... which means they are also doing it right.


If you don't have fun playing against competitive players, or against competitive lists, then by all means don't do so. But don't fall into the trap of assuming that your way of enjoying the hobby is the only 'right' one. Because it isn't.

For every person that doesnt bother wasting their energy complaining, theres at least 10 that dont care and will actually try to find reasons to complain.

I complain too, im human after all something doesnt go 100% my way i go "WHY ME!" etc etc. But i dont dig for things to complain about and i rarely complain about something more than once unless the topic arises by someone else (i.e. just an excuse to talk lol but more voicing my opinion than OMG IT BROKEN NERF NERF)

 Xca|iber wrote:
Something I've always found interesting is how players who like to laud the "underdog" lists and talk a lot about how so-called "underrated" units can be used just as effectively as anything else - and that anyone who dismisses them just doesn't know how to play properly (or is a stupid netlister, un-fun WAACer, etc etc) - often turn around and complain about how "OP" some units are, or how dumb it is to play a so-called "optimized" list or how it's not fun to go up against someone using a combo that's "unfluffy."

If underrated units are exactly that - underrated - then they should perform just as well as units that are considered "good." So a list that's designed to use them should be the same as any other optimized list. So really there should be no reason to complain about anything being OP or "unfun" since underrated units don't actually hinder your army in any way. Yet often we see that this isn't the case (indeed, some players will talk about how X unit is so underrated, then in the same breath blame a poor performance by that unit on Y unit being overpowered). If we just change our frame of reference a bit, and make the so-called "overpowered" units the competitive baseline (i.e. for tournament play), then those units are "normal" and anything worse than them are - lo and behold - worse. And yes, sometimes it's just the matchup being bad. We all have games like that - but it's not logical to blame a bad matchup on something being "OP," if we're assuming that all underrated units are perfectly usable.

I'm not saying it's bad to run fluffy lists or deliberately avoid competitive games/play-styles, but it seems hypocritical to me to say how great an "underrated" unit is then complain about the OPness of a different unit. If you can't take on a competitive, optimized list with your "These are great because I like them" underrated units, then you are poorly matched against your opponent in terms of your skill or list. In the former case, you can always get better and keep trying - always the best option. In the latter case, reevaluating the usefulness of the allegedly underrated units is probably a good idea.

Sorry if I come off a bit aggressive with that... Wasn't my intention, but I really dislike when anyone who even tries to make their list mechanically better gets labeled as "an un-fun/WAAC/terrible gamer that sucks the soul out of 40k." It's no more true a label than calling anyone who takes "sub-optimal" units a bad player.

I get where you're coming from, and honestly I think part of the problem is how people assess "power levels" of units, where they're can only be "OP" and "UP". Really I think it should be split into "simple to use", "hard to use" and "too expensive",

The units that are typically "OP" are the ones that are the easiest and most straightforward to use. They don't typically need as much support as other units and their use is usually pretty clearcut and straightforward. .

On the other hand, the "UP" units tend to be ones that need to need the most additional support, be it through additional units, or specific strategies (hiding in terrain or moving up the board behind vehicles, only assaulting weakened units, ect). They're usuable but not in straightforward manner and can often suffer if the units they need to be supported by are picked off.

Lastly there is the "too expensive" unit. It's not bad, it's just so expensive it's almost impossible to justify taking. Devastators with Lascannons were a prime example of this. At 51 points a model with a lascannon they were 204 points for just the 4 Marines (not counting the Sergeant, or the extra bodies you might take to eat wounds for your heavy guns), a price that puts them far more expensive than the vehicles they were trying to take on. Because of this they were often not taken despite being a reasonable way to kill vehicles.

At least that's how I break units down. I love using the "hard to use" type because they reward good play, on the other hand, I don't think anyone enjoys using the "too expensive" units because it's hard to feel like the points are worth what they bring.

ClockworkZion wrote:


I get where you're coming from, and honestly I think part of the problem is how people assess "power levels" of units, where they're can only be "OP" and "UP". Really I think it should be split into "simple to use", "hard to use" and "too expensive",

The units that are typically "OP" are the ones that are the easiest and most straightforward to use. They don't typically need as much support as other units and their use is usually pretty clearcut and straightforward. .

On the other hand, the "UP" units tend to be ones that need to need the most additional support, be it through additional units, or specific strategies (hiding in terrain or moving up the board behind vehicles, only assaulting weakened units, ect). They're usuable but not in straightforward manner and can often suffer if the units they need to be supported by are picked off.

Lastly there is the "too expensive" unit. It's not bad, it's just so expensive it's almost impossible to justify taking. Devastators with Lascannons were a prime example of this. At 51 points a model with a lascannon they were 204 points for just the 4 Marines (not counting the Sergeant, or the extra bodies you might take to eat wounds for your heavy guns), a price that puts them far more expensive than the vehicles they were trying to take on. Because of this they were often not taken despite being a reasonable way to kill vehicles.

At least that's how I break units down. I love using the "hard to use" type because they reward good play, on the other hand, I don't think anyone enjoys using the "too expensive" units because it's hard to feel like the points are worth what they bring.

This is definitely true. I think the biggest problem for underpowered units is that the more support or synergy that they require, the more narrowly and precisely they must be played in order to be effective. So what you end up with is an army that can be badly exploited by an opponent forcing a situation which the list can't deal with effectively. Sometimes this just means that it becomes a challenge (which can be very fun), but sometimes it can mean a turn 2 or turn 3 table-wipe for your army (which is decidedly less so). How players dance around that line is up to them, but for competitive players I think the solution is usually to just avoid the units altogether in favor of units that can support themselves on their own. I feel this is also partially why certain armies are tiered the way they are - some are designed around interdependent support (and just happen to have a few really straightforward units) while others (like marines) are designed around having lots of different, independently operating units (which is a small part of why they have lots of "OP" toys).

The other main problem for underpowered units is that adding enough support to make them effective can sometimes be impossible within given points limits. For example, in 5th edition I found it very hard to write effective Black Tide lists at the 1000-1500 level because the core of the list took up so many points that the support to make them playable just couldn't fit. This also overlaps with your third point about units that are too expensive - in a sense, anything can become "too expensive" (even competitive options) if the list style that you're going for doesn't have enough points to accommodate the strategy.

The paradox arises that various members of the human race derive enjoyment and pleasure from complaining and the resulting attention. So a topic of discussion to complain about will always be found.

 Xca|iber wrote:
This is definitely true. I think the biggest problem for underpowered units is that the more support or synergy that they require, the more narrowly and precisely they must be played in order to be effective. So what you end up with is an army that can be badly exploited by an opponent forcing a situation which the list can't deal with effectively. Sometimes this just means that it becomes a challenge (which can be very fun), but sometimes it can mean a turn 2 or turn 3 table-wipe for your army (which is decidedly less so). How players dance around that line is up to them, but for competitive players I think the solution is usually to just avoid the units altogether in favor of units that can support themselves on their own. I feel this is also partially why certain armies are tiered the way they are - some are designed around interdependent support (and just happen to have a few really straightforward units) while others (like marines) are designed around having lots of different, independently operating units (which is a small part of why they have lots of "OP" toys).

The other main problem for underpowered units is that adding enough support to make them effective can sometimes be impossible within given points limits. For example, in 5th edition I found it very hard to write effective Black Tide lists at the 1000-1500 level because the core of the list took up so many points that the support to make them playable just couldn't fit. This also overlaps with your third point about units that are too expensive - in a sense, anything can become "too expensive" (even competitive options) if the list style that you're going for doesn't have enough points to accommodate the strategy.

You're pretty much dead on in my mind. I'm not saying everyone should be using those challenging units, but the fact that they're there and they reward you for playing them well is good for those who want to dig a little deeper into the game.

That said, it seems that from the Tau codex on the Devs have been pushing the game to try and get it to be more about units supporting each other instead of stand alone units that just feel like their so easy to use that you can just focus on those units in an army and win the game. This seems to result in backlash as the previous two books have strong elements of this but still have units that are easy to use (Heldrake for instance) and thus are broken because they have a few "OP" options and everything else is "worthless" to a lot of players. I'm not going to try and invalidate anyone's point of view on that, but I think that it only holds true when you talk about the game from a tournament standpoint. In a more casual, or perhaps even a less hyper competitive tournament standpoint, you have more room to take those "worthless" options because the game you're playing allows you to.

Honestly I could chatter on this all day, but I'm going to stop here. OP, I welcome you to the club of people who take that more challenging road. It'll be hard at first, but you'll be a better player for it because even when you take those simple units you'll have the mindset to look at taking them to support and work with other parts of your army instead of just a stand-alone means to an end. Just remember that you'll lose a bit more when you screw up, or when you draw a poor match and that playing the mission beats quitting because your facing a list that is built a little simpler in execution than yours. Those losses will teach you stuff too, even if it's just that you need better dice because your's like rolling 1s too much.

 solkan wrote:
The paradox arises that various members of the human race derive enjoyment and pleasure from complaining and the resulting attention. So a topic of discussion to complain about will always be found.

Not my intention. I made this thread for a serious matter, not to take "pleasure" in attention. Frankly I couldn't give a damn what "attention" I get (I remember one time when I was playing a game at my LGS with my friend, and a crowd appeared (believed it was because we started our games late, so they had finished). I really didn't notice - attention isn't my thing. Although it is kinda inevitable that this thread would get some attention.

Again, I'm going to stress my point, because I don't think everyone understands. This is purely to try and stop all this bad criticism that some units get, and hopefully convince those who are going to listen to anything other than internet hate that they aren't as bad as they have been portrayed as.

Now I turn to insaniak's argument - like I have said before, competitive gamers are great at times (a lot of them never want to give up, and that is the spirit of it (hate forefetiing)), but the amount of times I've seen them "quit"? Here's how it goes with the competitive gamers I've seen and know. They will create a list (*internet* probably) and bring it to the club to win every single game, and have fun because of that. So the people who lose to these people are nothing but their stepping stones - they (generally) have a bad time playing while the competitive gamer has a great time. But if they lose then it's the opposite way around. The competitive gamer now has had a bad time while the other player has a good time. BUT even then the other player might have a bad time too because his win was an uphill struggle against a really powerful list, and no part of it was fun for him.

what a miserable game

A way to fix this is for players to put fun before winning, and ajust their lists accordingly. Sure still have your competitive side, but always check that your player is happy when you perform a ruthless move. This, in theory, ensures that, win or lose, you have a great time. The win is just an added bonus.

There are two places, I think, where you can have a very competitive list and a very competitive play style - in a tournament or when a competetive game has been agreed with your opponent. I don't think they belong with pick up games at a gaming club.

hope everybody gets my argument now. I'm not trying to whine, be aggressive or similar. I'm just trying to make people realise that there can be other ways to win without ruining your opponent's day (which has happened to me many times). This may sound like another argument, but I think they are bonded.

General Annoyance wrote:
A way to fix this is for players to put fun before winning, and ajust their lists accordingly.

So, essentially, the other guy is playing his game wrong, and should have fun the way you think is the 'proper' way to have fun?

The way to fix this problem isn't to insist that people have fun the 'right' way. It's to just stick to playing people who are in it for similar reasons to your own. If you don't like playing super-competitively, don't play against the super-competitive players.

 insaniak wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
A way to fix this is for players to put fun before winning, and ajust their lists accordingly.

So, essentially, the other guy is playing his game wrong, and should have fun the way you think is the 'proper' way to have fun?

The way to fix this problem isn't to insist that people have fun the 'right' way. It's to just stick to playing people who are in it for similar reasons to your own. If you don't like playing super-competitively, don't play against the super-competitive players.

I don't like the idea of arguing with a MOD.... oh well

I never said that's "the proper" way. It's the way to ensure that both people enjoy themselves, not just one. And also, I said this was for pick up games. I have no idea whether or not this guy I'm about to play across the table is competitive or not, until I see his list and play a game with him. Sure you could just say "well ask". Trouble is, that might narrow down my options quite a bit. It's something I haven't tried, but I probably need to do.

General Annoyance wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
A way to fix this is for players to put fun before winning, and ajust their lists accordingly.

So, essentially, the other guy is playing his game wrong, and should have fun the way you think is the 'proper' way to have fun?

The way to fix this problem isn't to insist that people have fun the 'right' way. It's to just stick to playing people who are in it for similar reasons to your own. If you don't like playing super-competitively, don't play against the super-competitive players.

I don't like the idea of arguing with a MOD.... oh well

I never said that's "the proper" way. It's the way to ensure that both people enjoy themselves, not just one. And also, I said this was for pick up games. I have no idea whether or not this guy I'm about to play across the table is competitive or not, until I see his list and play a game with him. Sure you could just say "well ask". Trouble is, that might narrow down my options quite a bit. It's something I haven't tried, but I probably need to do.

When playing a pick-up game (or even a game against friends), it's always a good idea to talk a bit beforehand to find out if you're both looking for the same kind of game. That's not to say you should always avoid someone who plays differently from you (as facing competitive lists can be a fun challenge), but if your attitudes don't match up very well it's probably not going to be a very fun game regardless of what you both bring. Personally I'd rather limit my spread of opponents if it means avoiding playing people who won't respect the way I play the game.

General Annoyance wrote:
I never said that's "the proper" way. It's the way to ensure that both people enjoy themselves, not just one.

Except it's not.

You're asking the competitive player to artificially limit his game because the other player doesn't want to play that way. If playing the game with the hardest list, against an opponent who is taking the whole thing as seriously as he is, is how that player enjoys the game, then they are not necessarily going to enjoy using a light and fluffy list against an opponent who is more interested in the narrative, because that's not the sort of game that he enjoys.

There is no single 'right' way to play the game that everyone is going to enjoy. You may not think that's what you're saying, but ultimately it is. You're assuming that the competitive player is going to have fun playing the way that you want to play, regardless of what they want.

 insaniak wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
I never said that's "the proper" way. It's the way to ensure that both people enjoy themselves, not just one.

Except it's not.

You're asking the competitive player to artificially limit his game because the other player doesn't want to play that way. If playing the game with the hardest list, against an opponent who is taking the whole thing as seriously as he is, is how that player enjoys the game, then they are not necessarily going to enjoy using a light and fluffy list against an opponent who is more interested in the narrative, because that's not the sort of game that he enjoys.

There is no single 'right' way to play the game that everyone is going to enjoy. You may not think that's what you're saying, but ultimately it is. You're assuming that the competitive player is going to have fun playing the way that you want to play, regardless of what they want.

Yup, thought I'd regret arguing with a MOD...

I understand that some players like to play that way. Don't think I don't understand that - I used to play competitively. But when I returned home after having not such a good winning streak, I wondered what I was doing wrong. I checked the list (looked good to me, an IG mechanised) and all that. Then I realised that maybe I would enjoy the game better if I didn't play for keeps.

This is what I am trying to say. I think that some competitive players are being far too serious to enjoy the game with the same volume that I do. If they want to play that way, then you are correct, there is no "proper" way to play the game. But when they come home and write whiney posts complaining how this unit "sucks" and how they need to "maximise" their list.... it doesn't really make for a good read.

Also, I do enjoy winning, and I do feel a bit pained when I've lost a game mostly. I can play competitive if I wish, and I do, but I always want to make sure the fun bit comes first, not after. I don't feel like going out for the entire day and return home not feeling satisfied. And then to go home and complain about it because you weren't satisfied with your game/playstyle/unit? Shouldn't you thought of having fun first?

Forgive me if it still doesn't make sense from my perspective - explaining how I feel about the topic seems to be a bit more difficult than I expected.... But I really don't make an argument for no good reason.

Competitive players and non-competitive players shouldn't play against each other: Problem Solved!

Kangodo wrote:
Competitive players and non-competitive players shouldn't play against each other: Problem Solved!

Not everyone has that kind of luxury. And there are competitive players who play the "hard-to-use" units. It's really a bit more complicated than just saying "don't play those guys."

General Annoyance wrote:
Hey all! I have an announcement to make....

I've been on Dakka for a while now, and I really can't help noticing all these posts and threads about people complaining about their codecies/units. It got me thinking.

Wouldn't the Dakka community be so much better if I didn't go on everyday and see a negative comment about some godforsaken unit or model? Yes, some entries can be quite terrible in codex's, but for the emperor's sake there's no need to whine constantly. Accept it, move on. I don't think I can say I've been on Dakka for a day and not someone cringe at a Hellbrute, rant about a Grenade Launcher, or some other damn unit or piece of wargear that gets some stick. It's time to grow up people!

But if you really feel like a man, you USE those units and wargear

So, guess what? That's what I'm doing. I've made a list with some GL's in it. I've made an Warhost with some Banshee's in it. I'm buying a dreadnought off Forgeworld to turn into a Hellbrute, and no amount of criticism or reasoning is going to stop me.

An honest contradiction? I'm a casual player. But when I'm using these units, that's going to change. I'm going to be competitive as possible, and see whether or not these guys really deserve the stuff I've heard on Dakka. And I'm not going to play that list just once, oh no. These are going to be my standard lists, and I will play game after game to rule out any intervention from the dice gods.

I know these units aren't great compared to other choices in each codex, I get that. I'm going to find out if they are BAD or not. 40k should be a challenge. Challenge accepted.

so, before I suffer a storm of internet hate from the advocates of "competitiveness" and "in it to win it" players, I'd like to ask if anyone out there actually agrees with me. Do you like to use a rusty old unit or piece of wargear from time to time? Does anyone really seek a challenge, other than an easy "internet list super competitive units" easy win?

I will return with my reports on these "damned" units. If they really are failures, then mock me all you like, for I think it's justified for me to look like an idiot. But if these units really are playable, then I think we better get our heads on straight...

Stop the whining! Long live a good community!

Stamped G.A. wish me luck!

luck!

i have heard a lot of hatin on abram, my helbrute, and i might decide to drop him outta my list...but as of right now i don't have anything to replace him with. anywo,

can't wait to see how well your ''damned'' unit works out

General Annoyance wrote:
Yup, thought I'd regret arguing with a MOD...

Me being a mod has nothing to do with this discussion. Outside of actual moderation duties, we're just members of the community the same as everyone else, and our opinions on the hobby are no more or less valid than anyone else's.

But when they come home and write whiney posts complaining how this unit "sucks" and how they need to "maximise" their list.... it doesn't really make for a good read.

Again, that really depends on your focus. If you were interested in discussing how to maximise your lists, you might feel differently about how good a read those sorts of threads are...

... but I always want to make sure the fun bit comes first, not after.

I'm still missing why you feel that 'playing to win' and 'having fun' are automatically two separate things.

Well, from my experience on this "whining" thing..

So far it's the fact it takes GW so long to simply FAQ things that simply do not work...

For instance, things that deepstrike without the capability of shootiing (Warp Talons) have no use deepstriking at all and are completely useless.. along side having a rule about landing within 6" of an enemy (Cutting it close in this game doesn't make for fun game play... if you mark bare minimum 6" away from your enemy units to try landing something like that chances are you're going to scatter and die, waste points and waste a good 2-3 hours on that game because of it)

Other instances are simply because of broken mechanics that prevent RAI models from performing their function adequately...

Most of the complaints I have ever dealt with in person are about silly things along those lines... Most don't bother complaining about so called "Broken" mechanics (*cough cough* MSS and killing your 250-300pts model ) nor actually complain about them in person because they simply don't want to cause trouble or instigate fever pitched arguments.

insaniak - what I'm trying to say is this. If a competitive player has played a game and lost, has he had fun? I don't think so judging by threads competitive players make. This is why having fun should come first. A win is just a bonus that competitive players should aim for. From what I've seen at my club and online, competitive players focus too much on winning rather than having a good game with their opponent. Certainly the ones at my LGS seem to forget that this is a hobby - nobody with a brain in their skull would keep doing something that makes them feel off colour.

@13whited - don't worry my friend! Next week I believe I will be starting to test the Hellbrute. Honestly I don't even know if it's a bad unit on the table - maybe on paper - but I've never seen anyone play one. I'll get back to ya - regardless of some of the advice I've got on this thread, saying that it might take thousands of games to really determine a unit's use, I'm still going for it. They only need to be good for when players play them - are we ever going to play a thousand games? Probably, but then technically we are all "testing" every unit in the game.

General Annoyance wrote:
insaniak - what I'm trying to say is this. If a competitive player has played a game and lost, has he had fun?

How long is a piece of string?

There is literally no way to answer your question without assuming that every competitive player is the same. Certainly some might not have fun if they lose. For others, the fun is in the attempt. You can't seriously say that competitive players only enjoy themselves when they win.

You can't take the complaints of some players as being representative of every player who plays competitively.

 solkan wrote:
The paradox arises that various members of the human race derive enjoyment and pleasure from complaining and the resulting attention. So a topic of discussion to complain about will always be found.

Not a paradox . There are places in the world where if you go on how happy you are , how much stuff you got and how generaly good your doing , you will at best get hate from everyone around who is not doing greate and at worse you get robed.

Had this with my grandmother all her life . We had to force new stuff on here. New bad , new cloths , new fridge when the old one got broken . And it wasn't that she couldn't afford stuff, she could . She just didn't want to show the neighbours that she can afford good stuff , because that would rise the chance of being robed.

 insaniak wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
insaniak - what I'm trying to say is this. If a competitive player has played a game and lost, has he had fun?

How long is a piece of string?

There is literally no way to answer your question without assuming that every competitive player is the same. Certainly some might not have fun if they lose. For others, the fun is in the attempt. You can't seriously say that competitive players only enjoy themselves when they win.

You can't take the complaints of some players as being representative of every player who plays competitively.

Again, I don't think you understand entirely what I am saying. Of course there are competitive players who have fun at trying to win, I never said everyone's the same. It's the fact that I see way too many game forfeits, whiney threads and so on that tickles me. Surely if they had/are having fun playing a game, they wouldn't forfeit? And forgive me if I'm ignorant of the gaming community at large, but this entire thread is from my experiences, and what I've seen. Again, I think there are too many players that weigh themselves down too much with trying to win that they forget what the hobby is here for.

Just from the OP, I don't think grenade launchers are particularly bad - I have a veteran unit with 3 and an autocannon in a chimera to provide some bonus anti-infantry fire and hold an objective. I already have plenty of plasma, melta and lascannons so they fill the niche nicely and help clear up whatever my griffons leave behind...

 DoomMouse wrote:
Just from the OP, I don't think grenade launchers are particularly bad - I have a veteran unit with 3 and an autocannon in a chimera to provide some bonus anti-infantry fire and hold an objective. I already have plenty of plasma, melta and lascannons so they fill the niche nicely and help clear up whatever my griffons leave behind...

yes I think it is time to go back to the original point

I agree with you, GL's are something I've tried a lot - I can remember a single list where I haven't included a handful. While, statisticly, any of the other weapons are more efficient, the GL is cheap and simple - I like to call it a blast lasgun to emphasise how useful it is for me

I get what the OP is saying, both players should have fun instead of just one, Im sure this was a rule in 40k... I think it was called "The Golden Rule" but unsure if its still there or not..